IJAZ ANWAR, J.- Samin Ullah, petitioner in this writ petition bearing No. 670-D/2016 as well as Muhammad Sajid and Muhammad. Arif, petitioners in the connected W.P.No.2904-P/2016 and 2945-P/2016, are aggrieved of the orders of respondents, vide which they have not been granted "grace marks".Since one and same question for determination is raised in all the three writ petitions, therefore, we propose to dispose of the same through this single judgment in W .P. No. 670-D/2016.
2. In essence, the prayer of the petitioners is that as per practice and rules, "grace marks" are awarded to the deserving candidates by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Public Service Commission "Commission", but they have been discriminated by not giving the said relief.
3. The respondents in their comments stated that the rules for awarding grace marks has since been withdrawn, vide notification No. SOR.IV (E&AD) 5-4/2006 dated 21.1.2010 and, at present, no such rules exist, therefore, the request for grant of grace marks is untenable.
4. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per rules and practice, the petitioners were entitled to be awarded grace marks, but denial of the same by the respondents is not only against the law and rules, but discrimination on the part of "Commission", while on the other hand, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the official, respondents submitted that the demand of the petitioners for giving them grace marks is untenable as there is no such provision in the relevant rules, therefore, rights of petitioners whatsoever have not been violated.
4. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record transpires that through Advert isement No. 07/ 2015, the Public. Service Commission "(PSC)" invited applications from, the desirous candidates for appearing in the competitive examina tion for the appointment against the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates/Alaqa Qazi (BPS-18). The petitioners applied and appeared in the written examination, conducted by the Public Service Commission. When the result was notified, the petitioner, Samin Ullah in W.P No. 670-D/2016, qualified all the papers except Criminal law in short of 04 marks, while petitioner, Muhammad Sajid in, W.P No. 2904-P/2016, though, qualified all the papers but failed in aggregate and similar is the case of Muhammad Arif in W.P No. 2945-P/2016 in short of two marks. They approached the "Commission" for awarding them grace marks, but in vain and, now, they have come to this Court for the grant of desired relief.
6. The perusal of syllabus of the Competitive examination reveal that the qualifying marks in the aggregate of written papers and viva voce shall "respectively be 425 and 30". It further reveals that "no candidate shall be summoned for viva voce test unless he/she has obtained at least 33 percent marks in each individual written paper and 50 percent marks in the aggregate. No candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the examination unless he/she obtain at least 30 percent marks in viva voce.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the facility of awarding of grace marks was there in the Commission, but the petitioners have been deprived from such facility and, thus, they have been discriminated. In support whereof, they referred to paragraph-6 of the Syllabus and standard for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Judicial Service Competitive Examination.
The. "Commission" in its comments stated that, though, earlier the facility of awarding grace marks was there, however, such facility was deleted in the year, 2010. In support, alongwith the comments, notification. No. SOR.IV (E&AD)5-4/ 2006 dated 21.1.2010 was also annexed. For facility of reference, the relevant part of the notification is reproduced, infra:- "In the appendix, the existing entry appearing at serial No.6 under the heading "SYLLABUS AND STANDARD FOR THE NORTH- WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMPETITIVE EXMIANTION", notified vide No. SOR-IV(E&AD)/3-1 1/2002 dated March, 05, 2002, shall be deleted."
Admittedly, on deletion of Paragraph. No.6 from the Syllabus, ibid, at present, there is no such provision exist either in the Rules of "Commission" or in the syllabus which provide the awarding of grace marks. Recently, this Court had declined the request for awarding grace marks in terms of paragraph. No. 6 in the Appendix of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Judicial Service Rules, 2001, to the candidates (in W.Ps No. 2808-P & 2810-P/2016), who participated in the Civil. Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate examination, conducted by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Public Service Commission, against which they filed Civil Petitions No. 3428 and 3429 of 2016, which were dismissed by Hon'able the Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 16.1.2017, with the following observations:- "We are not persuaded to hold that the notification or the non-mention of grace marks in the syllabus for any cogent reason is violative of the aforesaid articles of the constitution. Thus the argument that the petitioners were entitled to grace mark s is devoid of any force. As regards the submission that the grace marks should not be left to the discr etion of the authority , it may be mentioned that since there is no provision regarding grant of grace marks, the question of exercise of discretion becomes absolutely irrelevant. No case for interference has been made out. Dismissed accordingly ."
Similarly , the apex Court in the case of Province of Sindh through Chief Secre tary and others vs. Imran Badar , (2017 PLC (CS) 414), observed that deletion of provision for grant of grace marks by Sindh Public Service Commission as contained in the Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules 1964, through amending notification dated 02- 2-1999, was a positive step in furtherance of good governance aiming towards raising and increasing merits and high standard of professional, competence of civil servants. Hon'able the Supreme Court in the case titled N.- W.F.P. Public. Service Commission and others vs. Muhammad Arif and others (2011 SCMR 848), the apex court has also observed that:- "The learned High court has totally ignored the syllabus prescribed for examination and advertisement made in this regard. We may mention here that no vested legal right whatsoever was available to the respondents for the invocation of the provisions as envisaged in Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is well settled by now that "the right which is the foundation of an application under Article 199 is a personal and individual right. The legal right may be a statutory right or a right recognized by the law. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has legal duty to perform relating to the right. There must not only be a right but a justifiable right in existence, to give jurisdiction to the High Court in the matter . Unless whatever right, personal or otherwise, on which the application is based is established, no order can issue under Art. 199." (Muntizma Committee v. Director K.A. PLD 1992 Kar.54, Mahmoona v. Ham Din PLD 1984 Lah. 223, A.F Farms and Industries v. Development commr AIR 1953 Assam 155, Mahboob Khan v. Deputy Commissioner AIR 1953 Assam 145, Dine shcharan v . State of MB AIR 1953 Madh-B 165.
In the light of what has been mentione d hereinabove, we are of the considered view that respondents had no legal right whatsoever to demand for grace marks in the absence of any provisions or relevant rules or syllabus prescribed for examination of Provincial Management Service PMS and no interference could have been made by the learned High Court in circumstances as mentioned hereinabove."
In the case of Chairman, BISE, Lahore and another vs. Ali Mir (1984 SCMR 433) re-evaluation of the papers was regretted by the apex court due to the absence of any rules regarding evaluation.
7. Since at present there is no rules for the award of grace marks, therefore, in view of the above, the instant writ petition as well as the connected writ petitions No. 2904- P/2016 and 2945-P/2016 being without any substance are dismissed.